New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
Sign up
58
posted 1 year ago by AmericanInterests on scored.co (+0 / -0 / +58Score on mirror )
You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
disoriented on scored.co
1 year ago 3 points (+0 / -0 / +3Score on mirror ) 1 child
Even though Faulkner was a gentile who understood the nature of both niggers and television, he wasn't a particularly good human being. Nor was he an especially good writer. In an interview, he was asked "Some people say they can't understand your writing, even after they read it two or three times. What approach would you suggest for them?" Faulkner replies: "Read it four times."

Fuck that. Good writing stands on its own. It's not scripture that needs to be studied and interpreted.
PermaHandshake on scored.co
1 year ago 3 points (+0 / -0 / +3Score on mirror ) 1 child
That's not necessarily true. I have some really good books that anyone with an IQ < 120 are not going to understand even if they read it 5 times.
disoriented on scored.co
1 year ago 0 points (+0 / -0 ) 2 children
Like Joyce's "Finnegans Wake"? Or Kerouac? Thomas Wolfe? William Burroughs? They're all idiots. I have all of their books and I've read them. If you have to read it multiple times, it's not good literature. Good writing stands on its own.
AmericanInterests on scored.co
1 year ago 3 points (+0 / -0 / +3Score on mirror )
Kerouac = faggot
PermaHandshake on scored.co
1 year ago 1 point (+0 / -0 / +1Score on mirror ) 1 child
This is simply not true. You really think some sub-Saharan niggers with 70 IQ reading your favorite book are going to understand it? I guess your favorite book sucks then because if it was a good book, the niggers would understand it on their own. That's such an absurd statement you're making and it's incredibly wrong.
Ninjatacos on scored.co
1 year ago 1 point (+0 / -0 / +1Score on mirror ) 1 child
I've only ever needed to read Dostoyevsky one time. If you want to tell me "Demons" isn't good because I didn't need to read it multiple times to understand the critique of Soviet era socialism, then I'll just retort that I'm smarter than you.
PermaHandshake on scored.co
1 year ago 1 point (+0 / -0 / +1Score on mirror ) 1 child
That's not what anyone is saying. YOU only needed to read demons once. How many times is a NIGGER going to need to read it to understand it? 5? Does that make demons a bad book?

This is the original quote that disoriented had a problem with:

>Some people say they can't understand your writing

SOME PEOPLE. Not all people. SOME PEOPLE. So who are some people? PROBABLY STUPID PEOPLE. Just because niggers can't understand Faulkner unless they read it 4 times doesn't make him a bad writer because good writers write stuff ANYONE can understand when they read it once. This is simply not true. Some people simply lack the intelligence to understand some books in one read through and that says nothing about the quality of the author.
Toast message